DBM is collection of theory, politics and advocacy for trans, LGBT, sex and gender minorities, and their place in a decolonial world. From Alberta-based writer Mercedes Allen and guests.
The gender identity-specific human rights bill C-279 had its first hour of Second Reading debate on Tuesday April 16, starting with an extensive speech by Senate sponsor Grant Mitchell. The full Hansard is online, and I’ll repost his speech below the fold. There was one interesting little exchange after the speech began which went like this:
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin (The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock. Is there agreement that I do not see the clock?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: We do not see the clock. Senator Mitchell, please continue.
And then Second Reading continued for another half hour.
Bill C-279 is scheduled to have its second hour of debate at Second Reading this Tuesday, and then it will be up to Conservative Senate majority leader Marjory LeBreton whether to allow the bill to go to a vote. If it passes that, it goes to committee for review and possible changes. If changes are made, the bill would need to return to Parliament for another vote of approval. If not, the bill proceeds to Third Reading stage, two hours of debate and then, majority leader willing, a final vote. Senator Mitchell hopes to have the process completed by June. He tells Xtra:
“We’re told that the Prime Minister will prorogue in the fall and bring in a new throne speech,” Mitchell tells Xtra. “When you prorogue, everything is more or less back to square one. It would start all over again.”
I grew up in a Pentecostal church, so I remember the beginnings of some of the dominionist doctrines that characterize far right faith groups today. There was never any one principal compendium of theology that every church got behind (just as there’s no single denomination in the dominionist movement, and divisions exist), but rather there were different streams of thought that flowed in and gradually changed the course of the river of belief teachings. It filtered in through books by C. Peter Wagner, sermons by Oral Roberts, through Maranatha Ministries publications, through Youth For Christ media, and various other influences that made up the charismatic movement. So I remember when “abundant life” teachings became the new dogma.
Abundant life teachings were a loose offshoot of faith-healing, in which congregations were told to put their finances and trust in God and he would consequently bless them exponentially, in return. If you had only a dollar to your name, you give that dollar to God and he’ll find a way to give you much more in return — a twisting of the parable of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44), changing the valuing of the poor that Jesus-the-man intended into a give-everything ideal that could be taken advantage of in the name of Jesus-the-legend. There could be no excuse, then, for holding back the amount one tithed, in order to do things like pay the rent and bills, or to buy groceries.
Heads, we were right; tails, you were wrong.
It became another weapon in the shame machine, too. Abundant life teachings implied that the poor were poor because they were sinners, were irresponsible, lazy. And if you as a Christian gave abundantly to the church but saw no reward in return, then you needed to search your heart, because it meant that you were holding something back. It meant that there was some sin, some doubt, some laziness, some guilty pleasure, some impure thought that held you back, and that God therefore would not reward you until it was flushed out and addressed. And in this way, you were to give everything, and if you saw no return on it, it was your own fault. A shyster’s dream.
Abundant life philosophy became a part of charismatic philosophy, one of the foundations for what is called the New Apostolic Reformation, or Seven Mountains Dominionism, a kind of roadmap for the Evangelical extreme, fundamentalist Catholicism and other allies to try to achieve theological-based governance. And this is where it becomes necessary to parse things once again, because I’m referring to narrow branches of philosophy within a faith, and not the whole faith itself. This becomes blurred, because many of these leaders pass themselves off as speaking for their faith authoritatively, and few actually challenge them on that. I say this repeatedly in my blog because I believe it’s important that the specific abusive exploitations of Christianity that I single out not be conflated with Christianity itself, and by extension, with all Christians.
Abundant life teachings became a boon to some in the corporate sector, and had a lot to do with the growing together of dominionist doctrine and the Ayn Rand survival-of-the-fittest beliefs of the corporate class. Abundant life philosophy taught that the rich were rich because they were worthy in the sight of God, and blessed accordingly… a self-aggrandizing patronization that was easy to believe, reflecting the self-important self-image of many financial elites. And it absolved those who subscribed to abundant life teachings of feeling any social responsibility toward the poor. Poverty was for the weak, the unworthy, the lazy, the irresponsible… for those who deserved it. It fit the belief among the rich that anyone could be rich if they simply worked hard enough at it, or believed in God enough — something that fails to take into account the lack of opportunity and constant obstacles faced by the poor.
In case it’s not clear in my writing, I’m not talking about a conspiracy. There might be another name for it out there, but I call it “coinciding interest opportunism,” the tendency of self-interested parties to move toward policies, beliefs and tactics that suit those interests, resulting in the merger we’re seeing between the top one percent of wage earners and dominionist religion. The latter provides not only an affirmation of the growing class divide as though it’s pre-ordained by Christ, it also provides a mechanism to devalue the poor, perpetuate shame and keep adherents submissive and believing in the rightness of that submission.
And using abundant life -style teachings, even something as evil as slavery can be rationalized.
Easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than for the meek to inherit the earth… or something like that.
Vyckie at RH Reality Check pointed to a video today that vividly illustrates the convergence between far-right religious fundamentalism and the Any Rand -style corporate opportunism of the upper upper upper class. It’s a sermon posted online, which expounds on Proverbs 11:29, which reads:
He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind,
And the fool will be servant to the wise of heart.
On the basis of this scripture, Joe Morecraft of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church teaches his congregation that in godly cultures, slavery is God’s chosen fate for the morally deficient:
“There IS a place for slavery, then, in godly cultures. It’s the only place you can keep a fool under wraps. It’s the only way you can keep a man from ruining other peoples’ families…”
Morecraft’s church is located in Cumming, Georgia, so there’s quite likely an undercurrent of racism throughout the sermon. But race isn’t addressed directly at all; only through dog whistles and appealing to parishoners’ assumptions about those he defines as fools. Interestingly, the language he uses is more often the language used to target LGBT people (i.e. about family) than racial groups.
The video clocks in at 5:50 long, and provides a stunning lesson in the way evil can be rationalized through the use of scripture. It’s worth watching in full:
How prevalent is this kind of belief? Well, if you look at all of Christianity, then not very. But if you look within the narrow, vocal stream of North America’s far right Evangelicals in particular, it’s probably a lot more common than most would want to believe. Morecraft is hardly a major name among theocrats, although his church is apparently the progenitor of an offshoot of Presbyterianism that now encompasses 12 churches. His sermon is notable, though, as an example of the ideas that pervade pulpits in average neighbourhood churches — at least in southern states. While theocrats aren’t usually as blunt and bold as, say, Bryan Fischer, the attitude that equates poverty with sinfulness has become pervasive in the increasingly consolidated far right.
And it’s helped to make religion a tool in the arsenal of corporate social engineers.
Right from when it was first proposed during the May 2011 federal election, the Office of Religious Freedom (ORF?) was met with the accusation that it was an attempt to pander to its base, concerns that it would overstep the boundary of what Canada should be doing in foreign nations, and skepticism that it could be instituted in any kind of way that would be fair and balanced for all religions. As it turns out, it’s becoming not very popular among Evangelicals, either.
One of the clearest examples of late is RoadKill Radio’s interview with Jim Hnatiuk, who is the leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. Hnatiuk, of course, has a vested interest in dissuading far-right conservative voters from supporting Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, but what’s noteworthy is the particular aplomb with which RKR commentators lead the discussion, and continue what appears to be an ongoing conversation among dominionist-leaning (those who seek to legislate their morality) Evangelicals. (Incidentally, the RKR commentators also indicate their support for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill in that same webcast)
The growing discontent with the Office of Religious Freedom parallels an increased dissatisfaction with the Harper government on other fronts. Anti-abortion Members of Parliament have been breaking ranks and speaking in defiance after the Prime Minster’s Office quashed a motion that sought to reopen the abortion debate in the guise of condemning sex-selective abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision partially upholding hate speech legislation against Bill Whatcott has rankled many and been characterized as curtailing religious freedom, as well. In the case of the Office of Religious Freedom, RKR’s Ron Gray dismisses it as pandering and “window dressing to attract Canadians, people of faith.” Hnatiuk seems to object to the image of religious diversity projected during the launch, before characterizing the Office as a deflection from these and similar events (at 8:46 in the video):
When I saw the office being established… and I looked on the website of some of the presentations that were taking place around its establishment with all of these minority faiths standing behind the Prime Minister and I said “Oh my goodness, they’re actually believing that they’re going to benefit from this and that this is all about them and not about more votes and not about the attacks on the Christian freedom that we have in Canada….”
The Harper Conservatives have been coming to an ideological crossroads for some time, now, one that many predicted when the party achieved its majority government, but realized that it could lose power just as quickly if it appeared too radically conservative on social issues. Theocons became energized at the thought of being now able to legislate according to ideology, only to face the realization that the Conservatives are more concerned with maintaining power.
Only weeks before the ORF, Whatcott and sex-selective motion controversies, the Harper government came under fire for a Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) donation of $560,000 for Crossroads Christian Outreach in Uganda, given that the organization had an anti-gay position statement on its website, and was doing work in a nation where anti-gay positions have fomented a volatile culture of violence and hatred toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people. In classic Conservative fashion, Julian Fantino ordered a review, and then reported it completed, later that evening:
“… Minister Fantino’s office contacted LifeSiteNews Monday night to say that the review was complete and Crossroads’ funding would remain in place.”
MPs have demanded a full audit of CIDA, but that is unlikely, now that the entity is being folded into the department of Foreign Affairs. It remains to be seen what will be made of the report coming down shortly which notes how funding to theological groups have risen significantly, while funding to non-theological groups has stagnated:
Some examples: Africa Community Technical Services received $ 655,000 from CIDA in 2010, almost three times more than in 2005. On its website, the NGO says it carries out its duties “under the authority of the scriptures” and “seeks to glorify our Lord Jesus.”
Cause Canada says: “We pray that our identification with Jesus, our concern for justice and our practical demonstration of God’s love [...] attract people to Christ,” on its website. This Alberta NGO received $ 483,000 from CIDA in 2010, an increase of 32% compared to 2005.
This rise in money to religious groups also comes at the expense of womens’ programs, which have been shut out in many cases:
Then there’s the $495,600 CIDA grant to Wycliffe Bible Translators of Calgary, which works so that aboriginal people in far-flung corners of the world can read the scriptures in their native languages.“It’s okay to translate the Bible,” says Nicole Demers “But there are aboriginal women here who are dying.”
In fact, adds Demers, groups seeking CIDA funding are being told to leave the phrase “gender equity” out of their grant applications.
And it’s becoming clear that the controversies are only going to get rockier for the Conservatives as people become more aware of them and as the Canadian social landscape becomes even more polarized.
So it’s significant that Harper’s flagship promise to theological conservatives is floundering. Because as Jim Hnatiuk points out, these were the expectations of something like an Office of Religious Freedom (at 6:14 in the video):
Predominantly, worldwide, we see the whole issue of the Islamic worldview being predominantly the ones that are persecuting Christians — and others, and other faiths as well, but you know, by and large, it’s Christians out there. So if that is, if they’re going to be setting up an Office of Religious Freedom that can, they have to be saying, you know, in one sense, we’re going to really speak out against these… this, uh Islamic uh what do they call it a [could not make this word out]…
So if our government is saying that they’re going to be, I guess my point is, fight against, fight for religious freedom, they’re gonna be, they’re saying we’re going to start fighting against these Islamic regimes…
Well, perhaps it isn’t a coming out per-se, since it’s questionable as to whether they were ever “in.” But RoadKill Radio commentators Kari Simpson and Ron Gray have more or less made their position known on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill during an interview with Christian Heritage Party leader Jim Hnatiuk, who tacitly agreed. The interview highlighted the growing antipathy among Canadian Evangelicals toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Office of Religious Freedom, which will be a topic for another post. But here’s what they said (starts at 4:54 in the video):
SIMPSON: The Minister responsible for this Office of Religious Freedom is Minister Baird, am I not right? And Minister Baird has recently been in the news for two important issues. Wasn’t he the one who condemned and vilified a Christian organization that received $500,000 in funding to help drill wells in… a third-world country… because they had issues related to Biblical truths on homosexuality on their website? And is this same Minister Baird who’s responsible for this Office of Religious Freedom that I believe gave $200,000 to a group in Uganda to fight Christians that were trying to bring in laws that would help curb the epidemic of death as related to AIDS and HIV in that country…
GRAY: And the only country in sub-Saharan Africa that has succeeded in reducing the rate of AIDS in…
SIMPSON: Oh well, minor details, there you go Ron, the truth, again, that’s not allowed…
The first organization Simpson referred to was Crossroads, of course, and the issue about Crossroads’ website statement on homosexuality was that those kinds of views have been fueling the anti-gay hatred that led to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and an intensified environment of homophobic hatred and violence in Uganda. The second group referenced is an initiative to counter the anti-gay fear and hatred pervading that nation.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been more commonly referred to as the “Kill the Gays” bill, although there is some debate about whether the death penalty will still be in the final draft. Here are the other things it contains:
A definition of “aggravated homosexuality” which is overly-broad. If the death sentence remains in the bill, then aggravated homosexuality is the charge to which it would apply. Proponents of the bill represent aggravated homosexuality as referring to pedophilia, but it actually also includes people who are afflicted with HIV (whether they were aware of it or not), who have sex with a person who has a disability (whether the act was consensual or not), and “serial” commission of any of the included and overly-vague offenses) — having gay sex more than once would be included;
The targeting of friends, family and landowners for aiding / abetting LGBT people, for failing to report LGBT people, and for renting a room to LGBT people (via a strange reinterpretation of the word “brothel”);
A 3-year sentence for officiating a same-sex marriage, and a life sentence for being in a same-sex marriage or presenting a same-sex partner as a spouse (it’s not specified whether said marriage needs to occur in Uganda, but keep reading…);
The criminalization of anyone who fails to report in under 24 hours anyone who is gay, who witnessed a same-sex wedding, who rents a room to a gay person, who advocates for LGBT people, or who commits any of the other above acts, with a sentence of up to 3 years;
The criminalization of any of the above offences regardless of whether or not they occur in Uganda, provided they involve a Ugandan citizen, or a portion of the offense occurs within Uganda (i.e. the “failure to report” part). Extradition demands are also included;
The granting of wide, sweeping powers to the Minister of Ethics and Integrity Minister to enforce the act, effectively giving the power to initiate a witch hunt.
Male homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda since colonial British rule in the 19th Century, and is already punishable by up to life imprisonment. In 2000, wording was amended so that lesbianism could be criminalized as “gross indecency between two persons of the same sex,” which carries a term of seven years’ imprisonment. So all of the above are in addition to this status quo.
So that’s the bill that Kari Simpson and Ron Gray are cheering on. While it’s possible that they are unaware of some or all of the things in that bill, I’d consider it unlikely, given their converations with Scott Lively, who has been an occasional interviewee at RKR and who advocates for things like total criminalization of LGBT advocacy.
In West and Central Africa, Ghana was at the top of the list with a drop of 66% followed by Burkina Faso at 60% and Djibouti at 58%. The Central African Republic, Gabon, Rwanda and Togo, achieved significant declines of more than 50%. Other countries with significant declines in the region include Burundi, Cameroon, Mali and Sierra Leone where the decline was more than one third. Ethiopia achieved a 90% reduction in the rate of new HIV infections in the last decade. Despite a 25% reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, the region accounted for 72% of all new HIV infections worldwide in 2011.
In fact, the report has indicated that Uganda’s problem with HIV has been getting worse, and attributes it to declining condom use.
Ron Gray is a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party. Kari Simpson is a Vancouver-based activist with Culture Guard, a group that has influenced Parents’ Voice and other groups across Canada that are fighting against LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying education.
C-279 passed Third Reading, on a vote of 149 – 137. Aaron Wherry gives the early breakdown:
“Randall Garrison’s bill was supported by the New Democrats, the majority of Liberals (Judy Sgro and John McKay abstained), the Bloc Quebecois, Bruce Hyer, Elizabeth May and, by my unofficial count, 17 Conservative MPs: Erin O’Toole, Bernard Trottier, Terrence Young, David Wilks, Laurie Hawn, Michael Chong, Chris Alexander, Shelly Glover, Kellie Leitch, Cathy McLeod, Deepak Obhrai, Gerald Keddy, Jim Flaherty, John Baird, James Moore, Lisa Raitt and John Duncan.”
Before the Third Reading vote, there were three votes on clusters of amendments:
Amendment cluster one, Division no. 642 (defining Gender Identity as per the first half of the Yogyakarta definition): 152 to 134.
Amendment cluster two, Division no. 643 (dropping gender expression, and adding classes that have already been added to human rights legislation since the bill was originally drafted): 148 to 140.
Report Stage, Division no. 644 (concur the bill in with the amendments): 150 to 137
If you’re wondering how your MP voted on the amendments, today’s Hansard is up. No one paired in any of the votes (so in answer to one query, no, Justin Trudeau didn’t pair to make up for not being present), although there were some abstentions from the votes on amendments. Earlier in the day, Rob Anders tabled the notorious poll / petition which he actively solicited responses for through his website:
“Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present, on behalf of thousands of people who sent these to my office, petitions in opposition to Bill C-279, otherwise known as “the bathroom bill”, that would give transgendered men access to women’s public washroom facilities. These constituents feel that it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect and safeguard our children from any exposure and harm that would come from giving a man access to women’s public washroom facilities. I present thousands of signatures on behalf of the riding in Calgary West, and I know that there are many others that have gone to other members in this place.”
The votes at Third Reading are as follows: Read more
The Bathroom Bill was supposed to be voted on today.
No, I’m not talking about the human rights bill that opponents have tried to tag with that nickname — C-279, which proposes to clarify and enunciate legal protections for most transsexual and transgender Canadians (although the removal of the class “gender expression” has opened some doubt). Although C-279 says nothing about washrooms, opponents have tried to fearmonger about bathrooms, conflate trans people with sexual predators, and/or claim that human rights inclusion would somehow grant legal cover to predators. Bill C-279 passed, today, on a vote of 149 to 137, after first having amendments made to it. It proceeds to the Senate for ratification.
No, what I’m referring to is in fact a bathroom bill.
The State of Arizona has proposed a bill that is eerily reminiscent of the notorious SB 1070 “papers please” law that the U.S. Supreme Court had to rule on in 2012. And this afternoon, the Arizona Senate Appropriations Committee was scheduled to discuss Senate Bill 1432 — a totally innocuous bill which would require the Arizona State Board of Massage Therapy to appoint an Executive Director and outline the Board’s purpose and funding. However, an emergency amendment to it (text) would make it possible for anyone to demand to see a person’s birth certificate, and have them charged with disorderly conduct if their gender marker doesn’t match the washroom’s gender designation.
The bill would make it a class 6 felony to use a public washroom while trans, a crime punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. In Arizona, a class 6 felony conviction remains on a person’s permanent record, their right to vote is rescinded, potential employers are made aware of the conviction and can require an explanation, various licenses can be refused by the State, federal and state aid and other social assistance can be refused, rent can be denied, and one is banned from ever holding public office.
And it actually has a chance of passing, although it’s dwindling given the sudden media attention.
Rep. John Kavanagh introduced the amendment yesterday, in response to the City of Phoenix’s passage of an ordinance which widened human rights protections to include trans people, among others:
“What about the woman that are waiting in line to use the women’s restroom? There is a long line. They go into the men’s restroom. That’s against this law, isn’t it?” asked CBS 5′s Greg Argos. “Technically it is, but look, police use discretion every day,” Kavanagh responded.
“This is designed to protect young children from being exposed to the other gender in their fullness in inappropriate situations. I’m just restoring sanity, because the Phoenix bill turned gender upside down,” he continued.
You see, during the “bathroom bill” panic dredged up in Phoenix (much like the potty fearmongering circulating in Canada around C-279), legislators discovered that there never has been any legislation in place to bar trans people from using restrooms. Consequently, trans people have been using gender-congruent bathrooms for decades. For that matter, over 180 jurisdictions provide protections, going as far back as 1975, without those human rights protections ever being used to legalize or enable an assault in a washroom. When washroom panic was raised in Baltimore, Montgomery County Police Chief Thomas Manger released a public statement to attest that trans-inclusive legislation has not led to any such bathroom assaults, there.
On the contrary, Baltimore had been the scene of a brutal assault of a trans woman outside a public washroom. The incident garnered national attention, after amused staff at a McDonald’s cheered the fight on, recorded it and posted it on YouTube.
So with that kind of lengthy record of non-issues, Kavanagh just knew that Arizona is due for a potty incident. Naturally, trans peoples’ access to public washrooms had to be stopped right away.
“… The bill makes it a crime for a Transgender person to follow accepted and proven medical treatment protocols that have been employed for over 50 years and are demonstrated to be the only effective and ethical remedy.
The bill makes it legal to engage in the abuse and neglect of children who are gender variant, and stops them from being able to follow medical guidelines supported by every reputable pediatric organization in the nation.
The bill runs directly counter to Supreme Court decisions relating to the legality of using someone’s appearance for the purposes of discriminating against them
The bill is in opposition to the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution by creating a burden of inequality on all Arizonans.
The bill is unnecessary and untested.
The bill requires that everyone in the state of Arizona be required to present their birth certificate, on demand, to anyone with authority at any time, or risk arrest – even if they have a birth certificate that is in accordance with such.”
Abby Jensen notes how this legislation would be likely applied subjectively:
“How would such a law be enforced? By every overzealous restroom patron, security guard, business owner or mere passerby who decides that someone they see entering a restroom doesn’t conform to their notions of how a “man” or “woman” should look and complains to police. In other words, trans men, women and children, butch lesbians, feminine gay men, and straight, cisgender people who violate societal gender norms in some way can be harassed to prove their right to do what every other citizen takes as a given – the right to use a restroom for its intended purpose without harassment…”
Here’s the good news (maybe): SB 1432 has been postponed until next Wednesday, due to a committee procedural conflict. Which might give some time for sanity to prevail.
And by then, Arizona’s state legislature may have found some other puppies to kick.
A bit of point and counterpoint here, to provoke some thought.
I thought this portion of a lecture given by Robert Sapolsky at Stanford University, given in 2010, would be worth posting for folks who found this blog recently, and/or aren’t familiar with some of the medical discoveriess since the late 1990s. It gives a very quick overview of some of the developments that have been happening in studying transsexualism.
As a counterpoint, I was going to link to an article I wrote called Why “Born This Way” Is Not the Point, only to discover I’ve apparently never archived it on this blog (either that, or I’ve written so much that I’ve lost the ability to keep track of it all). So here it is.
Why “Born This Way” Is Not the Point
In her anthem coming soon to an ear near you, Lady Gaga asserts that whether “black, white, beige, chola descent” or “gay, straight or bi / lesbian, transgendered life,” we should all be proud, because we’re just “Born This Way.” The song was unquestionably well-intended, but there is a danger in basing the acceptance and validity on whether or not characteristics can be attributed to an inborn trait.
“Born This Way” is the inevitable product of an ongoing debate where legitimacy hinges on whether or not something is biological and intrinsic, or perceived to be a life choice. For those of us who are trans or queer, the far right version of the birth versus choice narrative claims that we are trans, lesbian or gay purely by choice. Underscoring this is the implication that if something is based on choice, then it is not something the right needs to accept or respect. From the perspective of someone who is part of both the trans and larger lesbian / gay / bisexual / trans (LGBT) community, I understand when we react to this debate to point out that we never chose to be as we are, and that it’s not something we can switch on or off like a light. But doing so misses the point entirely.
Yet something that bothers me (and isn’t mentioned much in the quest for biological legitimacy) is that clear proof of a biological origin would not only fail to convince those who hate LGBT people, it is also not the holy grail it’s made out to be.
There is ongoing debate about how much of human behaviour stems from biology, how much from conditioning and socialized expectations, and how much from choice. It’s probably not a good idea to dismiss any of the three. Although they are vastly different from being LGBT, Bipolar disorder and some forms of autism have been demonstrated to have some form of biological causation or linkage, so there are certainly precedents. So we play the opposite response: “it’s genetic.” Well, maybe it is, at least in part, but neither chosen lifestyles nor biologically-driven identities of themselves validate or disqualify value in a human being. In the long run, we might not exactly be comfortable with the implication of imparting all things biologically-connected with legitimacy. Imagine a finding in which pedophilia is shown have some genetic trigger. Certainly, many predators describe a compulsion they feel is intrinsic and beyond their control, so it’s not unthinkable that there could be a biological component. But it would be repulsive to excuse the molestation of children for this sort of reason. And at that point, consistency fails.
So biological causation only proves that we exist. We cannot depend on it for rights or to change hearts and minds. We cannot rely on it to find pride in our lives. It’s fascinating, marginally validating, but it does not provide the standard against which we measure ourselves as humans. Biological predestination is a poor measure of who is entitled to human rights or whether or not someone has a legitimate right to be. We recognize that people deserve respect, freedom, access to employment and services, and to be treated as equals regardless of any disability, poverty, class, body image, level of education, faith and several other factors that are not inherently predetermined. The “choice invalidation” argument seeks to undermine far more than the acceptance of LGBT people. Discrimination does not occur purely because of the colour of someone’s skin — rather, colour is one of many indicators that are used to trigger presumptions about an individual’s culture, lifestyle, behaviours and tendencies. You hear this excuse all the time: “I have nothing against them, but you know what they’re like….” Prejudiced people are blind to their prejudice because they’ve seduced themselves into believing that what they’re reacting to are associated choices and not really the trait itself, when they’re acting on the unspoken and often inaccurate smorgasbord of inventions that go with it. When we insist on biological validation, we are playing along with an ideology that makes soft excuses for bigotry, rather than confronting the impulse to discriminate.
And for that matter, how much of the “born this way” argument boils down to people feeling like they have to make excuses and seek societal forgiveness for existing, rather than pointing the finger back at bigotry?
The concept of human rights, of course, was supposed to address the extent to which hatred between diverse human communities manifested. Human rights legislation was a response to the dramatic and horrific manifestation of hatred during the mass genocide that occurred in Nazi Germany — but it also recognized that mass extermination is not a new phenomenon, and that modern society cannot be fooled into believing that it would never occur again. The principle is that all people should be treated as equals, but we know from experience that if we leave it up to everyone’s discretion, enormous imbalances happen. Even with human rights legislation, there are glaringly different ways that privileged and non-privileged classes are treated. So human rights legislation is structured in a way that identifies various classes that should not be used as bases to include or exclude — to accept or to hate — people. The classes are, of themselves, neutral (for example, “race” covers white people as much as anyone else), so contrary to another modern myth, there are no “special rights.” It becomes the role of the judiciary to balance the rights of the minority with the rights of the majority. In an ideal world, of course, we would all realize that all are created equal, but in practical reality, reminders have to be codified into law, because there is always disagreement about who should be treated fairly and what the limit to fairness should be. At the furthest extreme, without rights legislation requiring the legal system to take occurrences seriously, it becomes common for people to excuse violence or murder of minorities as being somehow justified or inconsequential, thereby devaluing the lives of the victims.
At some point, we need to realize that risk-conscious, responsible, respectful and genuinely consensual behaviour need to be the standards by which we measure people — by their actions, rather than any assumptions associated with any traits… even those that are not necessarily intrinsic, genetically-determined ones.
THE DEATH OF THE TRANSGENDER UMBRELLA: "If you've traveled anywhere among trans or LGBT blogs in the past year or three, you've inevitably come across an ongoing battle over labels, and particularly "transgender" as an umbrella term. It seems to be a conflict without end, without middle ground and without compromise..."
RT @TorontoStar: Earthquake confirmed! RT @CANADAquakes: Automatic detection of seismic event: magnitude 4.8 - 17 May 9:43 EDT - BRAESIDE, … 1 week ago
RT @Steve_Dangle: If Rob Ford has any sense of humour, he'll walk up to the podium and begin with "Am I high or was there just an earthquak… 1 week ago
My close friend is Armenian, and her father has friends in the Armenian community in Watertown, much of which is located on Franklin. In these last 24 or so hours, one of his friends have received calls, threatening or yelling at him just for being Armenian. Allegedly, these calls have blamed Armenians for helping the [...]
I logged into Facebook and saw the memes sprawling all over my feed equating the Boston bombings to terrorists, Muslims, and immigrants. I messaged them and engaged in dialogue validating their frustration but expressing how offended I felt and how perpetuating Islamaphobia only results in more violence, especially towards people who look “Middle Eastern”. O […]
I’m from Ocala, FL and living in Boston. I just called my local newspaper in Florida to ask how they were being sensitive to anti-Islamic sentiment in their reporting of the Boston Incident… they accused me of being racist against southern Christians. I felt hurt, confused, saddened. Wish people didn’t feel the need to defend [...]
Upon having seen coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, my mother, who is white, states, “Middle Easterns… always killing everybody.” I’m Middle Eastern, early 20s, and her son. My little sisters, who are South Asian were also in the same room, and they heard that. I felt very angry, unsafe, disappointed.
On Friday evening, after the second suspect in the Boston marathon bombings had been caught, President Obama took to a podium, and said the following: That American spirit includes staying true to the unity and diversity that makes us strong — like no other nation in the world. In this age of instant reporting and [...]
WHY "SEX CHANGE SURGERY" IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY
